Philosophy Assistance

12/3/21, 5:29 PM Final Essay

https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1434517/assignments/5846544 1/2

Final Essay

Due Dec 17 by 11:59pm Points 25 Submitting a text entry box or a file upload File Types doc, docx, pdf, google, and docs Available Nov 1 at 4am - Dec 17 at 11:59pm about 2 months

Start Assignment

Dear Students, Compose a well-argued, 2-4 page essay in which you state the issue being debated, inform the reader as to where you stand with respect to the issue, provide the strongest argument in support of your position, provide your opponent's strongest counter-argument, and respond to the counter-argument. You will a detailed rubric with more information in the "Outcomes" tab to your left.

Stephen Nathanson argues that city bombings and “collateral damage” killings are morally wrong in opposition to those who argue they are unfortunate, but necessary, to defeat dictators and terrorists. Nathanson argues that we must “bend over backwards” to avoid harm to civilian non-combatants or run the risk of becoming the moral equivalent of terrorists. Do you agree with Nathanson’s argument? Why or why not? Is there any significant moral difference between active voluntary euthanasia e. directly causing death (mercy killing) with the consent of the patient and passive voluntary euthanasia i.e. withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining measures with the consent of the patient? Is it necessary to change the definition of death in order to morally justify physician assisted suicide? Hard determinists argue that the concept of freedom of the will is incompatible with the success of the sciences. The determinists argue that if we do have free will that would introduce an element of uncertainty into the world and undermine our confidence in the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Those who defend the concept of freedom of the will argue that morality is meaningless if we are not free, at least to an extent. With whom do you agree and why? Are science and morality incompatible? John Searle’s “Chinese Room” argument is designed to show that artificial intelligence (“Strong AI”) is impossible. Daniel Dennett argues that Searle’s view is a “boom crutch” i.e. a faulty intuition pump[1] (https://ilearn.gavilan.edu/courses/10699/assignments/123606#_ftn1) and artificial intelligence may very well be possible. With whom do you agree and why? What are Paul Churchland's criticisms of mind-body dualism? Do they make a strong case against the possibility of dualism? Can Churchland’s materialist account of mind account for what Thomas Nagel calls “the subjective character of experience”? What is John Hick's "Soul Making Theodicy"? Do you think it is an adequate response to the atheists' "Argument from Evil"?

12/3/21, 5:29 PM Final Essay

https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1434517/assignments/5846544 2/2

[1] (https://ilearn.gavilan.edu/courses/10699/assignments/123606#_ftnref1) An “intuition pump”, as Dennett describes them, is not really an argument; rather, it’s a thought experiment designed to stimulate debate. A “boom crutch” is a faulty intuition pump that buttresses one’s biases against a particular view.